so 0.10.0 was released on October 0th?
the versioning scheme is probably linux-kernel like: a.b.c -- a = major version, b = minor version, c = revision. So you're still pre 1.0, on the 10th release/minor version, with 1 revision
they could probably, however, still share the disk space via that all-encompassing wireless network, effectively working like a very wide-area distributed disk cluster of some species. If they got a contract saying that he'd pay $0.01/month for the privilege of using their boxes as additional storage, it would return to legality, as it would still be him doing the capturing
"From a moral point of view: people who distribute copyrighted material are violating both the letter and spirit of the law, and deserve to be punished."
More accurately, it's good from a *legal*, not moral, point of view. Morals are subjective, and the ruling morals are mostly defined by the masses (even if their decision is heavily influenced by their leaders). Hence, it is, from the majority's point of view, moral to download music, simply because most people don't have a problem with it -- same as photocopying a book. However, it's illegal. This means that they violate both the letter and the spirit of the law, ok, and they are "elligible" for punishment. However, they don't "deserve" to be punished in the sense that the common morals don't really see his actions as warranting it.
With this I'm not saying that file sharing is morally correct from *my* point view. Rather, I'm acknowledging that the masses speak, and much the same way as certain (many?) communities see homosexuality, pre-marital sex, inter-racial relationships, and many other things as immoral, others have no problem with it. Hell, most communities would say bigamy is a no-no, yet many others are just fine with it. music copying is as subjective in its morality as these.
From the strategic point of view, it's nonsense. They only get a "bad guy" image out of it. Nobody is really scared of it, as the amount of sharers has reached critical mass.
Considering the ~6k processes total at ~$3k/process from settlements, that's a grand total of $18M. Peanuts, for the time scale and general profitability of the music industry. Therefore not even the income source aspect is particularly valid. Note I'm not saying they're not right in suing. There are legal grounds on which to sue, and they're 100% entitled to it. It's just that I don't think they'll get far.
the general idea is that once there are no more references to an object, and there's need for memory, the object is cleared from memory. So, if the object is refered to somewhere, but is no longer in practical use, it's a "memory leak" of sorts.
The whole point is that ignorance rules, for the most part, and it is our duty to inform. Not that we're agents of some divine entity, or even that we're unbiased. Many, if not most, of us are as biased towards linux as win users are towards MS. But the thing is, the more people actually know what linux is, the more users linux will have. We shouldn't just sit and whine that linux is the underdog, we should take it into our hands to show people what it can do.
"In all my experience I could never imagine a properly developed and deployed Linux solution underperforming a Windows solution or being inadequatly stable"
This is a great part of the issue at hand. In the article's second page, you have a bloke stating that their Linux box couldn't cope with a 5k pass sale over a weekend. Now, considering they state their choice towards Linux was cost-based, you can almost bet their server setup was also chosen on a cost basis, and il--scaled. Unsurprisingly, you come to a situation where "The e-commerce component stopped working for about a day". It would be quite nice if the community managed to rid linux of its "cheap alternative to windows" tag, and managed to replace it with "a lean mean serving machine".
Also, and perhaps more importantly for the future of linux, there's the part where "There was a limit set up within the program that said you can only order 'x' amount of products within one transaction" and "When one of our guests went over the limit, it crashed the whole store. We then had to manually identify the erroneous credit card charges."
Now, I'm no guru, but I'm not really familiar with any linux-specific limitation to how much a vendor can sell of one product unless the sales were enough for an overflow, and even then I doubt the system would crash right down -- and most certainly the manager wouldnt be complaining. So we have our dear ol' resort managers confusing linux with the rather crappy software they're running on it. This, together with the Oracle being the only database available crap, is the greatest threat Linux faces: ignorance.
I hardly believe it's a matter of dell's quality or lack thereof. If you look attentively to the tech specs for (LCD) displays, you will notice that most have a heading for response latency somewhere around there. "crappy" lcds have latencies on the order of the 25 ms, whereas good ones are on the 12-16 range. This delay is quite noticeable, if sometimes hard to exactly pinpoint. Also, if your condition is THAT much worse than what I'm describing, the matter might b esomewhat different (perhaps drivers, or other already described problems)
"As long as they can keep saying "but you haven't opted out" they're safe."
I was under the impression that you had to opt in to start with? so that if push comes to shove and it gets to the courts (provided you track down the bastard), he'd have to PROVE you had given him permission to use the mail somehow. OR is that just european union stuff? I know that in the US you need to say that you DON'T want mail sent to you when you subscribe something (say, creating an acct here at/.), whereas here in the EU you have to specifically say you allow it
that'd be FAR too cumbersome for Joe User (and plain annoying for the hacker as well). And there ARE 3rd party programs that DO fish for all autorun spots of the registry and list the "offenders". It's not like MS has to do everything. They're just a bunch, compared to us lot;)
Oh, they'll agree to the standards alright. and 2 days later they publish the new and improved version of your standard, with super-duper (and highly exploitable) proprietary extensions that mean MS is so much better than the competition.
Accepting open standards isn't the problem with MS. It's the staying within them that's the trick
Slashdot Mirror
remember that firefox is still pre-1.0, so officially it's not in a stable/production state yet. As such, you can't really compare it with IE/Mozilla.
so 0.10.0 was released on October 0th? the versioning scheme is probably linux-kernel like: a.b.c -- a = major version, b = minor version, c = revision. So you're still pre 1.0, on the 10th release/minor version, with 1 revision
they could probably, however, still share the disk space via that all-encompassing wireless network, effectively working like a very wide-area distributed disk cluster of some species. If they got a contract saying that he'd pay $0.01/month for the privilege of using their boxes as additional storage, it would return to legality, as it would still be him doing the capturing
"From a moral point of view: people who distribute copyrighted material are violating both the letter and spirit of the law, and deserve to be punished." More accurately, it's good from a *legal*, not moral, point of view. Morals are subjective, and the ruling morals are mostly defined by the masses (even if their decision is heavily influenced by their leaders). Hence, it is, from the majority's point of view, moral to download music, simply because most people don't have a problem with it -- same as photocopying a book. However, it's illegal. This means that they violate both the letter and the spirit of the law, ok, and they are "elligible" for punishment. However, they don't "deserve" to be punished in the sense that the common morals don't really see his actions as warranting it. With this I'm not saying that file sharing is morally correct from *my* point view. Rather, I'm acknowledging that the masses speak, and much the same way as certain (many?) communities see homosexuality, pre-marital sex, inter-racial relationships, and many other things as immoral, others have no problem with it. Hell, most communities would say bigamy is a no-no, yet many others are just fine with it. music copying is as subjective in its morality as these. From the strategic point of view, it's nonsense. They only get a "bad guy" image out of it. Nobody is really scared of it, as the amount of sharers has reached critical mass. Considering the ~6k processes total at ~$3k/process from settlements, that's a grand total of $18M. Peanuts, for the time scale and general profitability of the music industry. Therefore not even the income source aspect is particularly valid. Note I'm not saying they're not right in suing. There are legal grounds on which to sue, and they're 100% entitled to it. It's just that I don't think they'll get far.
the general idea is that once there are no more references to an object, and there's need for memory, the object is cleared from memory. So, if the object is refered to somewhere, but is no longer in practical use, it's a "memory leak" of sorts.
The whole point is that ignorance rules, for the most part, and it is our duty to inform. Not that we're agents of some divine entity, or even that we're unbiased. Many, if not most, of us are as biased towards linux as win users are towards MS. But the thing is, the more people actually know what linux is, the more users linux will have. We shouldn't just sit and whine that linux is the underdog, we should take it into our hands to show people what it can do.
"In all my experience I could never imagine a properly developed and deployed Linux solution underperforming a Windows solution or being inadequatly stable" This is a great part of the issue at hand. In the article's second page, you have a bloke stating that their Linux box couldn't cope with a 5k pass sale over a weekend. Now, considering they state their choice towards Linux was cost-based, you can almost bet their server setup was also chosen on a cost basis, and il--scaled. Unsurprisingly, you come to a situation where "The e-commerce component stopped working for about a day". It would be quite nice if the community managed to rid linux of its "cheap alternative to windows" tag, and managed to replace it with "a lean mean serving machine". Also, and perhaps more importantly for the future of linux, there's the part where "There was a limit set up within the program that said you can only order 'x' amount of products within one transaction" and "When one of our guests went over the limit, it crashed the whole store. We then had to manually identify the erroneous credit card charges." Now, I'm no guru, but I'm not really familiar with any linux-specific limitation to how much a vendor can sell of one product unless the sales were enough for an overflow, and even then I doubt the system would crash right down -- and most certainly the manager wouldnt be complaining. So we have our dear ol' resort managers confusing linux with the rather crappy software they're running on it. This, together with the Oracle being the only database available crap, is the greatest threat Linux faces: ignorance.
I hardly believe it's a matter of dell's quality or lack thereof. If you look attentively to the tech specs for (LCD) displays, you will notice that most have a heading for response latency somewhere around there. "crappy" lcds have latencies on the order of the 25 ms, whereas good ones are on the 12-16 range. This delay is quite noticeable, if sometimes hard to exactly pinpoint. Also, if your condition is THAT much worse than what I'm describing, the matter might b esomewhat different (perhaps drivers, or other already described problems)
not wanting to be a Microsoft supporter here, but for the record, outlook (not sure about express) does that no-pic thing as well
"As long as they can keep saying "but you haven't opted out" they're safe." I was under the impression that you had to opt in to start with? so that if push comes to shove and it gets to the courts (provided you track down the bastard), he'd have to PROVE you had given him permission to use the mail somehow. OR is that just european union stuff? I know that in the US you need to say that you DON'T want mail sent to you when you subscribe something (say, creating an acct here at /.), whereas here in the EU you have to specifically say you allow it
that'd be FAR too cumbersome for Joe User (and plain annoying for the hacker as well). And there ARE 3rd party programs that DO fish for all autorun spots of the registry and list the "offenders". It's not like MS has to do everything. They're just a bunch, compared to us lot ;)
Oh, they'll agree to the standards alright. and 2 days later they publish the new and improved version of your standard, with super-duper (and highly exploitable) proprietary extensions that mean MS is so much better than the competition. Accepting open standards isn't the problem with MS. It's the staying within them that's the trick